A.10.1: Third-Party AI Relationships
Manage supplier risk for third-party AI components.
Last reviewed October 2026
Why A.10.1 evidence is hard
Supplier risk for third-party AI components is managed through contracts, due-diligence files and a review cadence, none of which is probe-shaped. The overlap worth using is inventory. The AI-BOM separates components you declared from components the platform found by probing, which is how a model nobody signed off surfaces as a gap in the supplier register.
How Penaxtra maps to A.10.1
The ISO/IEC 42001 A.10.1 identifier is attached at creation, so a finding reaches the evidence export already in the structure an assessor reads. Twenty-five cross-framework overlap pairs are pre-computed, so where this same weakness also lands on another framework, that control identifier rides the same finding instead of being re-derived. Every finding carries the probe that was sent, a SHA-256 digest of the response it provoked, the tier that decided the verdict and its status history from first observation to close. Identity survives a re-scan: a control you closed and that comes back reopens under the same row with a reopen count, rather than arriving as a new issue.
A.10.1 capabilities
Findings tagged with the ISO/IEC 42001 A.10.1 identifier
Penaxtra severity for this control (high)
Cross-framework identifiers attached to the same finding where controls overlap
PDF and JSON evidence export with the control identifier attached
A.10.1 control coverage
Findings for A.10.1 carry the ISO/IEC 42001 A.10.1 identifier along with the corresponding control identifiers in the other frameworks Penaxtra maps, so one result is reflected across each mapped framework.
Frequently asked
What is A.10.1 (Third-Party AI Relationships)?
Manage supplier risk for third-party AI components. It is an ISO/IEC 42001 control; Penaxtra assesses it at high severity.
How does Penaxtra test for A.10.1?
The ISO/IEC 42001 A.10.1 identifier is attached at creation, so a finding reaches the evidence export already in the structure an assessor reads. Twenty-five cross-framework overlap pairs are pre-computed, so where this same weakness also lands on another framework, that control identifier rides the same finding instead of being re-derived. Every finding carries the probe that was sent, a SHA-256 digest of the response it provoked, the tier that decided the verdict and its status history from first observation to close. Identity survives a re-scan: a control you closed and that comes back reopens under the same row with a reopen count, rather than arriving as a new issue.
Does a finding for A.10.1 help with an audit?
Each finding is tagged with the ISO/IEC 42001 A.10.1 identifier and exported in the PDF and JSON evidence pack, so it appears on the auditor control list with the identifier already attached.